<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Bad Break: FDA Continues Review Of Bone Drugs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/03/a-bad-break-fda-continues-review-of-bone-drugs/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/03/a-bad-break-fda-continues-review-of-bone-drugs/</link>
	<description>News, Comment and Conversation</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:40:18 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: PdfoK FilE</title>
		<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/03/a-bad-break-fda-continues-review-of-bone-drugs/#comment-533756</link>
		<dc:creator>PdfoK FilE</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:49:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=21916#comment-533756</guid>
		<description>the drug company is going to do a heart related trial AFTER the drug is approved??? shouldnt that be done PRIOR? or did they learn nothing from the Phen-Fen debacle?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the drug company is going to do a heart related trial AFTER the drug is approved??? shouldnt that be done PRIOR? or did they learn nothing from the Phen-Fen debacle?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DocLemmon</title>
		<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/03/a-bad-break-fda-continues-review-of-bone-drugs/#comment-479133</link>
		<dc:creator>DocLemmon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:07:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=21916#comment-479133</guid>
		<description>I'm never surprised by these sorts of things. 

The bisphosphonates were hyped and oversold. 

If your severely osteoporotic, T-score -2.5 or worse, Fosamax will cut relative risk (the deception) of hip fractures 56% over 4 years. Absolute risk is cut only 0.3% per year, 1.2% total over 4 years.  Bottom line, 80 women take it for 4 years to prevent 1 fracture at a cost of over $300,000.

And it only works if patients are compliant enough to take their calcium and vitamin D every day. No benefit from taking Fosamax longer than 5 years. 

Now we see there is a downside.

Nice post Ed. 

I think I will write a blog post on this topic in a few days.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m never surprised by these sorts of things. </p>
<p>The bisphosphonates were hyped and oversold. </p>
<p>If your severely osteoporotic, T-score -2.5 or worse, Fosamax will cut relative risk (the deception) of hip fractures 56% over 4 years. Absolute risk is cut only 0.3% per year, 1.2% total over 4 years.  Bottom line, 80 women take it for 4 years to prevent 1 fracture at a cost of over $300,000.</p>
<p>And it only works if patients are compliant enough to take their calcium and vitamin D every day. No benefit from taking Fosamax longer than 5 years. </p>
<p>Now we see there is a downside.</p>
<p>Nice post Ed. </p>
<p>I think I will write a blog post on this topic in a few days.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: patrons99</title>
		<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/03/a-bad-break-fda-continues-review-of-bone-drugs/#comment-479116</link>
		<dc:creator>patrons99</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:07:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=21916#comment-479116</guid>
		<description>I would really like to see a prospective, double blind, placebo controlled study comparing high dose Vitamin D3 versus the bisphosphonates. There may well need to be a new medical practice guideline for the treatment of osteoporosis.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would really like to see a prospective, double blind, placebo controlled study comparing high dose Vitamin D3 versus the bisphosphonates. There may well need to be a new medical practice guideline for the treatment of osteoporosis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David, Health Blogger</title>
		<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/03/a-bad-break-fda-continues-review-of-bone-drugs/#comment-479051</link>
		<dc:creator>David, Health Blogger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:35:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=21916#comment-479051</guid>
		<description>This is shocking news.

The last I looked at these medications they were viewed as effective for preventing bone fractures.  Now?

Things change so fast in the world of pharmaceuticals.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is shocking news.</p>
<p>The last I looked at these medications they were viewed as effective for preventing bone fractures.  Now?</p>
<p>Things change so fast in the world of pharmaceuticals.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justice in MI</title>
		<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/03/a-bad-break-fda-continues-review-of-bone-drugs/#comment-478947</link>
		<dc:creator>Justice in MI</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:33:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=21916#comment-478947</guid>
		<description>Oh, the agony!  Can you imagine if Sally Field fell off the dock?  Well, she'd probably be rescued by the Flomax Kayak Team.

But seriously....I'm still wondering why ABC did this as a lead story a few nights ago, and in unusual detail.  Clearly, they got a head's up on the AAOS presentations.  But I don't recall quite this kind of "preemptive" (pardon my phrase) coverage of an issue when no drug withdrawal involved.

Is Diane Sawyer making a difference?  Perhaps her 60 Minutes background?  Personally, I think the program is improved since she stepped in.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, the agony!  Can you imagine if Sally Field fell off the dock?  Well, she&#8217;d probably be rescued by the Flomax Kayak Team.</p>
<p>But seriously&#8230;.I&#8217;m still wondering why ABC did this as a lead story a few nights ago, and in unusual detail.  Clearly, they got a head&#8217;s up on the AAOS presentations.  But I don&#8217;t recall quite this kind of &#8220;preemptive&#8221; (pardon my phrase) coverage of an issue when no drug withdrawal involved.</p>
<p>Is Diane Sawyer making a difference?  Perhaps her 60 Minutes background?  Personally, I think the program is improved since she stepped in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.151 seconds -->

